Wikipedia

User talk:The Bushranger/Archive21

< User talk:The Bushranger
Latest comment: 10 years ago by The Bushranger in topic I haven't a clue...

Copyright violation?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

That helicopter crash in this section says[1] 'The Russian authorities opened a criminal investigation into the deaths. After the crash, an officer from the local transport prosecutor’s office was sent to the site to conduct the investigation' where as this source for the article reads 'Authorities have opened a criminal investigation into the deaths. An officer from the local transport prosecutor’s office was sent to the site of the crash to conduct the investigation.' This article was deleted for copyright violations already....William 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Crikies, you're right - it has CP from all of its sources.   Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to delete it or do I need to CSD tag it first?...William 00:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given I've already !voted I've tagged it for G12. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot WP:INVOLVED for a minute....William 00:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, if it was more obvious (blatant cut-and-pasting of massive paragraphs) I'd just nuke it, but this one is close enough to let somebody else push the 'do not push' red button! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD in need of closure

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm talking about this one[2] which started on July 20th. Looks like a clear delete to me....William 15:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly after looking through all that arguing, I'm not sure I want to stick my oar in that mess... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article creator(WHo argues up and down the post multiple times) and one other person say keep. Seven say delete plus the long held consensus of the Baseball project is that minor league seasons aren't notable. There's been multiple AFDs, this[3] most recently, Here are two[4] more[5]. Over 70 minor league season articles have been deleted....William 00:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, previous consensus does seem clear, although my main concern is that a lot of the delete votes here seem a little weak on policy. But it does seem a clear case after a re-read. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's   Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,   Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by   Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by   Piotrus (submissions),   Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (July 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

After someone left me a real talk page message, I stopped getting the fake thing. Perhaps this message will resolve the problem for you as it did for me. Might help if you'd report at VPT what happens after you get this message, especially if the fakes continue. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens, thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
At least I know I'm not the only one that got the message. Heck, I had to rely on my 5-year old unused account to fixit! ZappaOMati 01:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

That helicopter crash in this section says[6] 'The Russian authorities opened a criminal investigation into the deaths. After the crash, an officer from the local transport prosecutor’s office was sent to the site to conduct the investigation' where as this source for the article reads 'Authorities have opened a criminal investigation into the deaths. An officer from the local transport prosecutor’s office was sent to the site of the crash to conduct the investigation.' This article was deleted for copyright violations already....William 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Crikies, you're right - it has CP from all of its sources.   Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to delete it or do I need to CSD tag it first?...William 00:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given I've already !voted I've tagged it for G12. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot WP:INVOLVED for a minute....William 00:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, if it was more obvious (blatant cut-and-pasting of massive paragraphs) I'd just nuke it, but this one is close enough to let somebody else push the 'do not push' red button! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD in need of closure

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm talking about this one[7] which started on July 20th. Looks like a clear delete to me....William 15:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly after looking through all that arguing, I'm not sure I want to stick my oar in that mess... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article creator(WHo argues up and down the post multiple times) and one other person say keep. Seven say delete plus the long held consensus of the Baseball project is that minor league seasons aren't notable. There's been multiple AFDs, this[8] most recently, Here are two[9] more[10]. Over 70 minor league season articles have been deleted....William 00:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, previous consensus does seem clear, although my main concern is that a lot of the delete votes here seem a little weak on policy. But it does seem a clear case after a re-read. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's   Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,   Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by   Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by   Piotrus (submissions),   Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (July 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

After someone left me a real talk page message, I stopped getting the fake thing. Perhaps this message will resolve the problem for you as it did for me. Might help if you'd report at VPT what happens after you get this message, especially if the fakes continue. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens, thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
At least I know I'm not the only one that got the message. Heck, I had to rely on my 5-year old unused account to fixit! ZappaOMati 01:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

That helicopter crash in this section says[11] 'The Russian authorities opened a criminal investigation into the deaths. After the crash, an officer from the local transport prosecutor’s office was sent to the site to conduct the investigation' where as this source for the article reads 'Authorities have opened a criminal investigation into the deaths. An officer from the local transport prosecutor’s office was sent to the site of the crash to conduct the investigation.' This article was deleted for copyright violations already....William 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Crikies, you're right - it has CP from all of its sources.   Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to delete it or do I need to CSD tag it first?...William 00:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given I've already !voted I've tagged it for G12. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot WP:INVOLVED for a minute....William 00:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, if it was more obvious (blatant cut-and-pasting of massive paragraphs) I'd just nuke it, but this one is close enough to let somebody else push the 'do not push' red button! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD in need of closure

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm talking about this one[12] which started on July 20th. Looks like a clear delete to me....William 15:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly after looking through all that arguing, I'm not sure I want to stick my oar in that mess... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article creator(WHo argues up and down the post multiple times) and one other person say keep. Seven say delete plus the long held consensus of the Baseball project is that minor league seasons aren't notable. There's been multiple AFDs, this[13] most recently, Here are two[14] more[15]. Over 70 minor league season articles have been deleted....William 00:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, previous consensus does seem clear, although my main concern is that a lot of the delete votes here seem a little weak on policy. But it does seem a clear case after a re-read. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's   Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,   Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by   Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by   Piotrus (submissions),   Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Douglas F3D Skyknight

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Copied from MilborneOne (talk): I'm giving up on this article and unwatching it, as any attempt to edit it or even try to discuss the changes on the talk page is met with a stream of attacks. Good luck if you attempt to reason with Pheasantpete, but I want nothing more to do with him.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks the user clearly has no idea how wikipedia works, I think it will probably end with an NPA block the rate they are going. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
See this section in the article: "After successful trials, the Skyknight test pilots enjoyed some good times at the Southern California legendary Happy Bottom Riding Club. The world record airspeed breaking aviatrix, stunt pilot and Lockheed test pilot Pancho Barnes and proprietor did not offer them the customary free steak dinner for breaking the sound barrier as the F3D Skyknight never received the much powerful Westinghouse J46 engines that likely would have made this possible if only in a dive. This was the tradition the legendary Florence "Pancho Barnes began with her good friend Chuck Yeager for Muroc Army Airfield test pilots of this small yet extraordinary era of those who flew faster than the speed of sound." I have temporarily moved it into a "Note to readers" but it really doesn't belong at all. I think this needs an admin (hint, hint) to make an executive decision here.FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed; I'm actually already in the process of flailing about on the talk page about this while the Truck Series race wrings out the track. (It looks very much like WP:SYNTH to me too!) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
His attitude is somewhat reminiscent of Ken Keisel, but his choice of articles is different from Ken's, so I don't think it is him. Pete's first interaction with me (at least under that username) included the accusation that I "may be getting even for disagreeing on previous articles", which does suggest he may be a blocked or banned user. Might be worth an SPI to find out who. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Might not be able to yield any result if the master account has been blocked long ago and/or his current account had been dormant all this while until very recently, which is the case here. Let's just wait and see... I'm still sifting through possible trails. Anyway, I really wonder what Dougweller has to say since he's the first to experience Pete's wrath. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly yeah, without at least a hint of who he might be, there's no way to SPI, as   CheckUser is not for fishing. However the fact that the account was created in 2010, didn't edit until 2012, and then only once until January, smells strongly of orange sauce. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Move Duckworth RfC to BLPN

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Arrrggghhh! Are administrators cats that refuse to be herded? (Forgive me, I'm about to repost my {{user frustrated}} template!) I saw your comment – but what if the RfC goes one way and the BLPN goes the other? All we gotta do to consolidate the debate is post some move templates. Then the discussion can whirl about on the BLPN. But one whirlpool is better than two. Still, I certainly do thank you.   – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Meow, meow, meow, meow, meow! I wouldn't object per se to a move of the discussion, but wouldn't do it myself (and would hope WP:COMMONSENSE would prevail, but apparently Deadpool is right, it's a superpower!) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

EW warning etc

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just a quick question, any reason why you've only warned one side of the EW you've noted on my talkpage? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The situation was brought to my attention via email, and I provided advice regarding the situation via that medium. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, covert stuff. I understand. Not my style, but whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've noted your comments under the complaint I made yesterday about Mo-aimn. As you can see from Cailil's comments he asked me to drop it so I'm no longer posting any responses. I hope you don't mind me contacting you this way while the complaint is still open but may I respectfully suggest that you communicate with Cailil because there's a lot more to this than is evident from the complaint. There's a history going back at least five years and is all to do with POV on articles relating to The Troubles. I made the complaint in good faith because I don't want to see a return to WP:BATTLE but without you knowing what has already transpired it's easy to see ME as the guilty party. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I unfortunatly don't have time to dig too deeply into this mess, but as you've now disclosed your previous accounts and are not editing from them, my concerns have been resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blue Star page protection

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think full protection was appropriate in that situation. Autoconfirmed users have generally agreed to the description used in the belligerents box and the IPs who started trying to edit-war it out were being purely disruptive, accusing other editors of being Indians and making offensive comments about Indians. Semi-protection seems more appropriate in those circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've reduced it to semi then, based on that. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Tallahassee

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am curious as to why you keep reverting the reference a relatively new user has added regarding some school in Nova Scotia named after the CSS Tallahassee? Especially since the summary you are leaving refers to external links. Granted it isn't the highest quality reference, and he didn't format it, but you have to be somewhat accustomed to cleaning up after newbies as long as you have been here. I could better understand you reverting the copy which he was referencing, as that is trivial to this article and barely past trivial for the ship's article. could you enlighten me? If your objection is the lack of formatting, I will be happy to do that for him. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It struck me as more "here's a link to the place" then "as a reference"; thus violating the "no external links in main body of article" standard. I suppose it could be used as a rference, though, you're right, so I've reverted it to re-add it. However, if it's named after the ship and not the city, better placed on the CSS Tallahassee article? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC
I agree it would, but would a ship article even have a place to put it? I admittedly have not read the ship's article, but the info the reference gives show an interesting bit of expanded history to add to the ship article, if only a truly reliable source could be found. Thanks for looking out for the new guy, Bushranger! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BGM-75 AICBM, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tankies

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are NO such things as 'Tankers' in the British and Commonwealth armies of WW2. The term 'Tanker' is an Americanism and has NO place in an article describing Canadian or British tank crew.

As the correct term from the manuals at the time is 'Tank Crew', I have altered it to 'tank crew' whilst I get evidence form British and Canadian Tankies to prove that they were NOT known as 'Tankers'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMMTB (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 9

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just so you know, your edit to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 9 confused AnomieBOT, so I moved it around to make it happy again. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Humour at ANI

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You had queried my comment on humour policies at ANI. Looking back at it I realized it was placed in the wrong section. I thought I had followed up with a proof read but obviously not close enough. Instead of attempting to move it, possibly too late to be effective, I just deleted it along with your query. I wouldn't normally have removed another editor's comment but it would just be left hanging without any purpose. I hope you don't mind. Thanks 99.251.120.60 (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, that's happened to me on occasion! Thanks for the explanation. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhs

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for stopping vandalism! He also removes content on the pages Golden Horde, Mongols, Kyrgyz people.......Chris1636 (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do those also need protection? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I am quite sure he will come back to spoil these pages sometimes later.Chris1636 (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if he does, give me a ping and I'll see what I can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your work!Chris1636 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw this, but we already had one rangeblock just done for that kind of vandalism, and I think another is a better option than protection (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More inappropriate blanking of Turkic-related articles). Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Alas, rangeblocks are not something I've ever really been able to wrap my mathmatically-challenged brain around... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Confused

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
  • Hey TBR, wonder what you make of this? Well, we all know what or how the sidewinder started life as but for the lede section to be rewritten this way... it kind of confuses the ordinary reader, no? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A bit confusing, but there is a point there - not all Sidewinders are IR! I wonder though if maybe the AIM-9 article might be reaching the point it should be split into articles on the various "groups" of subtypes? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That I have to agree, though we all know that the AIM-9C was a standalone missile like what the Soviets did with their own development of a SARH version (R-3R) of the K-13 (AA-2 Atoll) missile but nothing in the lede section or infobox made any mention of the SARH version until later on the article section. And about the article reaching a sort of "critical mass", think I'll support the latter opinion to spin off the variants section instead. So... Batman, is it time to get into the Batmobile again? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Alas! Anyway, I'm off to races, so basically a spinout o fthe variants is a good idea, and mentioning the AIM-9C in the infobox, also. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Prokaryotes

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that talk page access was not actually revoked, he/she made responses to you on the page. CtP (t • c) 03:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

...huh. Fixed, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Parasites of

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seeing as how I didn't see the category change requet for the "parasites of" until it was moved, could you kindly ask that "parasites of horses" be renamed "parasites of equines" or something similar, as donkeys and mules are also affected by most of the same parasites, not just horses (and when we leave them out, the donkey and mule fans often take serious issue with us at WikiProject Equine for being too horse-centered... sigh... Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you being serious?!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Look at the history - I am not the 3RR person here! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&action=history doktorb wordsdeeds 18:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that history. You are at 3RR right now. He is at 2RR. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bigkhan.com

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This page doesn't satisfy WP:GNG; it is an ordinary website. It was created by the website's founder himself who even removed the speedy deletion tag from the page. Fideliosr (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like somebody else got to it. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL, It was spam, so I CSDed it! - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I was Reviewed!!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was reviewed on Monday by the Bushranger. What does this mean? Regards V1v3k31 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea, although it might have something to do with new-page patrol? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Time up?

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Can-opener showed up!

Category emptying?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Are you planning to delete Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of Germany? You seem to be busy removing all content from it, in favour of a less-specific category. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not planning to delete it. I am, however, removing articles from it that do not fit its scope; the "Abandoned" tree is for aircraft that were never flown, while the "Cancelled" tree - which I do plan to nominate at CfD for a variety of reasons - is for types that did fly but were, well, cancelled. If it's kept I plan to properly diffuse it. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
So you're going to make this change, discard the German distinction (which makes processing the cleanup so much easier), introduce a gratuitous OR distinction of implied meanings between "abandoned" and "cancelled" and then discuss the changes. Same old, same old for the aviation projects, I see. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing is being "introduced". This has been the definition for "Cancelled military aircraft projects" vs "Abandoned military aircraft projects" ever since the tree was created - I am simply cleaning up where articles have been miscategorised. And, as I said, if consensus is that "cancelled" is defining - which IMHO it is not - then I will do the trouble of diffusing the tree. Please have a little good faith. Whether or not the "flown but cancelled" should be kept is an entierly different thing then whether flown-but-cancelled types should be dumped in willy-nilly with unflown types - which I am sure is something we can agree is undesirable. (Your comment about OR though does make a good point about why the "cancelled" tree shouldn't exist, and I feel somewhat embarassed for having created it way back when.) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 16:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black's Topic ban

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As you placed the sanction, I want to report a possible violation of the topic ban and interaction ban imposed on Lucia Black. On August 8th, she made a post about the GITS GA.[16] Ryulong informed that it was likely a breach of the topic ban for discussing the pages, but she did not persist after this post.[17] Today during an ongoing dispute at DRN, Lucia made this post asking for it to be on hold - again the subject is anime and manga.[18] Exactly one minute later Lucia comments on Sjones (who I am collaborating with on animated films like Spirited Away) making apparent reference to me, "Yes I hope you return soon. I know how it feels like when disruptive editors ruin things."[19] The issue of the Ghost in the Shell manga being allowed to exist is currently under discussion at the DRN, it was started before the topic ban, but concerns Ryulong and I having it mediated by Kim Bruning. So I am not sure of the details or standing. I was hoping you could take a look at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the letter of the restriction, asking for the DRN to be on hold isn't a technical violation, seeing as it's "articles" related to WP:ANIME that are covered. The second could be taken as gaming the IBAN, but IMHO it might be best to take a 'water off a duck's back' motion there - a lot of times when things like that happen, it's 'to get attention', and the best way to deal with it is not to give it (I call this 'baby cockatoo syndrome' after a description of the behavior in said birds that fits well in a Bird Talk issue many moons ago). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay and thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Have WP become another FB clone?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  • See User:Riyas202, I am dumbfounded again. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Apparently the 'self article' is the 'in' thing these days. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
      • So, Wikipedia is not anymore an Encyclopedia? I mean, I've seen a couple of userpages belonging to academics (one of them a SysOp here who is also a professor at a prestigious University in UK) but nothing was made like that! What, WP is now a Facebook/Friendster/linkedin clone?   Facepalm... --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

From the peanut gallery

Kikka

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The source of the information I added is the Japanese Wikipedia and most books you can read in the Japanese National Library. Why would you deny the original information , when they even claim what I wrote? Simply no professional book in Japan would have the Kikka as a "suicide" bomber or as a "receptor". I would like to know the source of it being a "suicide" bomber or a "receptor" as it may be very likely to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.14.33.87 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As for "most books", citation is needed - just saying "most sources say..." isn't enough, and given that the majority of English sources state, as far as I know, the content currently in the article, both sources would need to be given equal weight, if the sources claiming otherwise are correct at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

You closed the {{afd}} on Rahmatullah Mansoor. Could you do as you did with other Guantanamo {{afd}} and (1) make this a redirection to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay; (2) restore the article's revision history and talk page.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The redirect is on the way. Restoring the revision history, however, is not possible as it was userfied to User:Geo Swan/Rahmatullah Mansoor. If you're not going to convert that into an article again, though, I can move it back to articlespace to historify the redirect.   - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That was quick. Thanks for the quick response. I just noticed you already userified it. So, you would have no objection if I changed it to a redirect, and moved it back to userspace? Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean change it to a redirect and move it back to mainspace, I presume? That would be acceptable, however, if you are not planning on merging any content to the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay article from it, there's no need. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I spent some time on it. While there are two captives named Rahmatullah, checking when they were repatriated showed he was neither of them. The one existing reference from 2005 said he returned to Afghanistan in 2005 -- and met President Hamid Karzai at that time. It says he told Karzai Guantanamo was preventing the Taliban from agreeing to enter into Peace negotiations. It doesn't say he was one of the Guantanamo captives named Rahmatullah. Rather I now think he was a Taliban defector, whose return in 2005 was simply to Afghanistan -- presumably from Pakistan or Iran.
I found that a guy from Khost, named Rahmatullah Mansoor, described his two sons, and two nephews, being gunned down by NATO forces in April 2010. NATO originally claimed the shooting was a good shooting, even though the four individuals in the car NATO shot up were unarmed because the fingerprints of one of the dead was in the bio-metric database NATO maintains. However, the reason he was in the database was that he an Afghan police officer. Is it the same guy? Maybe. Karzai has appointed Taliban defectors to important posts, and this guy had been appointed a judge.
Anyhow, not a former Guantanamo captive, and not ready for article space. Geo Swan (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ricky Allman

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been deleted once already. Can you please expedite deletion? Oremiter (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's at AfD now; looks like WP:SNOW in the forecast. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You HAVE to be kidding me, I am ONLY WPPilot on Wikipedia, I copied and pasted some of that comment as that other comments was on the point. I DO NOT MAINTAIN ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS ON WIKIPEDIA and I have NO IDEA who that other user is. Any normal person can look at our edits and you see NO overlap of anything whatsoever. This story is a can of worms that seems to be under attack by people that prefer to take from this world rather then give to it, as I do. If Wikipedia would be a better place without my photos I will stop contributing them but don't levy allegations upon me that have utterly NO foundation. That is ridicules.......--WPPilot 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's simply a matter of cut-and-pasting, then I apologise, but this should be an example of why "saying it in your own words" is a good idea. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I only agreed with the comment and augmented it. Apology accepted, please remove that sockpuppet request, thank you. --WPPilot 18:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

LB - Topic Ban

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Left on my talk page. I left a response for her spelling it out in detail in case she was unclear. But her reply says to me she does understand perfectly well. Its not something I would bother ANI with, but an Admin letting her know 'stay away' means 'stay far away' might help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped a line. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Annoying really, I didnt even notice the DRN until afterwards. I just saw this edit summary and went back to restoring it to the better format. DRN is a failure in this case anyway, as mediation (an aspect of dispute resolution) requires people to have common ground. The GITS/DBZ etc issues are a disagreement over basic applications of policy & guidelines. Since no one is going to budge, it will end up at AN/RFC/Arbcom at some point. Thanks anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
By request of kim, I asked if the DRN would in halt until I can add my 2 cents on the matter. I can only discuss things that aren't directly relating to Anime/manga. Regardless, I can't even exempt this topic ban because the topic ban/interaction ban wasn't even that specific. Luke simply mentioned "I was being disruptive". What's worst is this is how WP:IDHT works. By silencing the 1 editor who cants answers but because consensus is so universal, they don't see the need to even provide. Plus misuse of WP:BOOMERANG somehow allows chris to be left unscathed by no form of topic/interaction ban. Even when proof was provided of disruption he started, the proposer did little effort to make it seem like I was worst (and again I stress "littlee effort" as most of what luke said was not seeing it in an objective view.) There is simply no room for me to request this at AN because if I even mention the issues of the topic/interaction ban in the first place.Lucia Black (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If you believe that the topic ban is inappropriate or unjust you can appeal it at AN, which is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Lucia Black has altered your comment/warning, specifically this is what got her blocked the first time after the ANI.[20] This is 100% unacceptable in my eyes, and wiggling the topic ban she's been warned about previously, but I was wondering if I should bring it to ANI since it is your comments she is altering and you imposed the topic ban. Edit: Oh the edit conflict was Lucia... and while I am sure that post violates the one-way interaction ban, shall I remove this post? I prefer to have no interaction with Lucia as a result. I came home to this ongoing mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to AGF that the refactoring was an attempt to remove the whole thing, which is, technically, allowed under policy. I've pointed Lucia to AN above, what happens there is up to them. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(not interacting with chris) This is the type of stuff I'm talking about. I've mentioned before those were mistakes done by not being familiar with my new smart phone. An issue both Drmies and Chris simply don't believe (hence, assume bad faith in the worst way possible). Now I simply click "show changes" just in case I accidentally edit another. And I did intend to remove your comment entirely.Lucia Black (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That N Korean guy

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Bushranger, I dropped by that discussion of the North Korean whose identity is being vigorously questioned by Jack Uplands. The situation there seems to be under control. But I'm curious about one thing: I'm not so experienced on WP, and I had THOUGHT that you could only be in violation of BLP if you did an edit in the article itself--that eds can say what they want (within reason) on the talk page, since the public generally doesn't see that? Wrong? Thanks for clarifying. EMP (talk 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. WP:BLP applies on every page on Wikipedia, actually - it doesn't matter if it's the article, talk page, or one of the project (Wikipedia:) pages. Since somebody might get mad seeing themselves "slandered" on any page, it doesn't matter where it is - you have to be careful about living people anywhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Leelabratee

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Do you think it'd be worthwhile to delete User:Leelabratee and undelete only the last revision? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I don't really think it's necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I just thought it might be because the other two accounts got the same treatment. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
They'd had active MfDs at the time the sock blocks came down - that's why they were deleted.   - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chevy Trucks NASCAR 150

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You have made Chevy Trucks NASCAR 150 a redirect to itself.

The same for Kroger 225 (Kentucky Speedway).

Aisteco (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Accursed cut-and-paste failures. Thanks for the catch! - The Bushranger One ping only 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK process proposals/discussion thread

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Notifying you that I have posted at WT:DYK some ideas how we can avoid problems of the kind we just had, in future. Contribute if you can, and thanks :)

Link). FT2 (Talk | email) 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can wrap my brain around stuff, thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ryan is back

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Check out 2013 CHC helicopter Eurocopter AS332 crash. First edition of which contained this lovely- "the aircraft lost power and lost contack with air traffic control"....William 22:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh geez...I thought we were rid of him after his epithany that he was causing collataral damage. Guess that wore off... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah Ryan has been awfully quiet of late. Just one known sock before this one since April 30. A UK related aviation incident without an article must be too big a temptation....William 01:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

NASCAR edit warrior

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If 72.211.185.40 (talk · contribs) makes any more unsourced edits to articles that you watch, and especially if they're edits about living people, you don't need to warn him/her--just drop a line on my talk page and I'll reblock. The disruption has to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Soccer

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks! --Pete (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Elliott at the Brickyard, 2002

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's not weasel words or POV, it's pretty blatantly obvious that it was the most dominant victory in the race's history. Other dominant victories, such as those by Jimmie Johnson only a year or two ago, occurred over long periods of green, whereas Elliott drove away from the field after numerous yellows, and ran down all the leaders in the final one hundred miles. But given the mindset of Wikipedia, you probably don't care, so nevermind. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I do care, and even agree. But in order to use terminolgy that it was the "most dominant victory", you have to provide a reliable source that states as such. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

changing closed afd discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Bushranger,

Some time ago you made this edit to a closed AfD discussion we both participated in, for technical reasons. For some reason, when I use snottywong's afd tool, it keeps showing up as me having voted merge in that discussion even though I voted delete. Maybe it's because I put a period in my bolded "delete" vote? I didn't really know what I was doing since it was one of my first AfDs. Obviously this isn't exactly a super consequential or pressing issue, but I was thinking about deleting the period; yet I didn't know whether doing so was okay since it is a closed discussion, after all. Thanks, AgnosticAphid talk 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the !voter above you didn't use a full signature on their post, and the way the tool works it's confusing your !vote with theirs. I've tweaked the page accordingly on the basis that it's borking the tool - check and see if it's displaying properly now? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that fixed it, thanks so much! AgnosticAphid talk 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See my response on my talk page. I have made this argument successfully several times. The Austrian Airforce link very specifically states 2495kph at 10,975m. That is a very specific reference from a reliable source, rather than Mach 2+. On the Eurofighter talk page I have provided several other supporting references. I have argued my piece and can't see why it's me being asked to provide further proof. Most places that say 'Mach 2' say Mach 2+ so don't specifically disagree and the Mach 1.8 link is an isolated link specifying an operational limit imposed during peace-time. If any one of you actually knew anything about planes, you wouldn't be suggesting that a plane with ramped intakes is slower than similar planes with pitot intakes and less powerful engines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people editing who don't actually understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being "asked to provide further proof" because the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors is that you have not made your argument successfully at all. For better or for worse understanding of the subject is not required to edit any topic on Wikipedia; even if you're occasionally forced to deal with Randy from Boise, the way to resolve that isn't to get mad when people don't accept your word, but, instead, to make like the Credible Hulk. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd rather hate to think that Wikipedia has put facts up to democratic voting. What happens when several people on Newton's talk page state that F doesn't equal ma? Here are links from an airforce and the 2 main manufacturing bodies (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) that state the speed at 2,495kph, 1521mph and Mach 2+ respectively.
2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer)
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Mach 2.0+ - EADS
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html
Mach 2+ - Technical Guide
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf
These are all top ranking sources, especially the 2 from the actual people who made the plane. I think I'm correct in thinking that these should put the matter beyond 'consensus' (also know as 'who can shout the loudest' in scientific circles). So far there is one source on the entire internet that states the speed as Mach 1.8 but you expect people to ignore every other source and heed that one? Please don't be so naive as to think that there aren't biases among the other editors and that that isn't what's really causing this issue. Can we please have some kind of sensible decision in light of the above? Can I at least add these sources to the page?Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about "voting", it's about establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and comparing it to what would be an obvious fringe theory doesn't help your case. The argument is not in favor of the "Mach 1.8" figure, but rather whether the "Mach 2.35" figure is correct. Please remember to comment on content, not the potential motivations of other contributors; now, it's clear the Mach 1.8 figure isn't supported by sources, so I've modified that, but further changes need to be done as part of the discussion on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Donald E. Adams

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I added an infobox to this article Donald E. Adams, but have a question is it notable? I mean, according to Military Times he only got a Silver Star as a main valor.--Mishae (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As a flying ace, notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Question 2: Is Purple Heart notable? Such examples are Victor Zaragoza and Juan Ramirez--Mishae (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Heart doesn't confer notability - those two fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I guess I should speedily delete them. I already put a tag on them.--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they need to be WP:PRODded. A7 is only for where there is no claim to notability, which these have. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had made them? In that case, G7 (author request) could apply, if you wanted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you will delete them either way, since it doesn't meet the notability, or are they now? Confused.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both now proposed for deletion; if somebody objects believing evidence can be provided that they are notable, then a full WP:AFD can be done; if not, the PROD expires in one week, at which point deletion occurs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See my response on my talk page. I have made this argument successfully several times. The Austrian Airforce link very specifically states 2495kph at 10,975m. That is a very specific reference from a reliable source, rather than Mach 2+. On the Eurofighter talk page I have provided several other supporting references. I have argued my piece and can't see why it's me being asked to provide further proof. Most places that say 'Mach 2' say Mach 2+ so don't specifically disagree and the Mach 1.8 link is an isolated link specifying an operational limit imposed during peace-time. If any one of you actually knew anything about planes, you wouldn't be suggesting that a plane with ramped intakes is slower than similar planes with pitot intakes and less powerful engines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people editing who don't actually understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being "asked to provide further proof" because the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors is that you have not made your argument successfully at all. For better or for worse understanding of the subject is not required to edit any topic on Wikipedia; even if you're occasionally forced to deal with Randy from Boise, the way to resolve that isn't to get mad when people don't accept your word, but, instead, to make like the Credible Hulk. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd rather hate to think that Wikipedia has put facts up to democratic voting. What happens when several people on Newton's talk page state that F doesn't equal ma? Here are links from an airforce and the 2 main manufacturing bodies (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) that state the speed at 2,495kph, 1521mph and Mach 2+ respectively.
2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer)
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Mach 2.0+ - EADS
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html
Mach 2+ - Technical Guide
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf
These are all top ranking sources, especially the 2 from the actual people who made the plane. I think I'm correct in thinking that these should put the matter beyond 'consensus' (also know as 'who can shout the loudest' in scientific circles). So far there is one source on the entire internet that states the speed as Mach 1.8 but you expect people to ignore every other source and heed that one? Please don't be so naive as to think that there aren't biases among the other editors and that that isn't what's really causing this issue. Can we please have some kind of sensible decision in light of the above? Can I at least add these sources to the page?Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about "voting", it's about establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and comparing it to what would be an obvious fringe theory doesn't help your case. The argument is not in favor of the "Mach 1.8" figure, but rather whether the "Mach 2.35" figure is correct. Please remember to comment on content, not the potential motivations of other contributors; now, it's clear the Mach 1.8 figure isn't supported by sources, so I've modified that, but further changes need to be done as part of the discussion on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Donald E. Adams

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I added an infobox to this article Donald E. Adams, but have a question is it notable? I mean, according to Military Times he only got a Silver Star as a main valor.--Mishae (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As a flying ace, notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Question 2: Is Purple Heart notable? Such examples are Victor Zaragoza and Juan Ramirez--Mishae (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Heart doesn't confer notability - those two fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I guess I should speedily delete them. I already put a tag on them.--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they need to be WP:PRODded. A7 is only for where there is no claim to notability, which these have. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had made them? In that case, G7 (author request) could apply, if you wanted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you will delete them either way, since it doesn't meet the notability, or are they now? Confused.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both now proposed for deletion; if somebody objects believing evidence can be provided that they are notable, then a full WP:AFD can be done; if not, the PROD expires in one week, at which point deletion occurs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See my response on my talk page. I have made this argument successfully several times. The Austrian Airforce link very specifically states 2495kph at 10,975m. That is a very specific reference from a reliable source, rather than Mach 2+. On the Eurofighter talk page I have provided several other supporting references. I have argued my piece and can't see why it's me being asked to provide further proof. Most places that say 'Mach 2' say Mach 2+ so don't specifically disagree and the Mach 1.8 link is an isolated link specifying an operational limit imposed during peace-time. If any one of you actually knew anything about planes, you wouldn't be suggesting that a plane with ramped intakes is slower than similar planes with pitot intakes and less powerful engines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people editing who don't actually understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being "asked to provide further proof" because the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors is that you have not made your argument successfully at all. For better or for worse understanding of the subject is not required to edit any topic on Wikipedia; even if you're occasionally forced to deal with Randy from Boise, the way to resolve that isn't to get mad when people don't accept your word, but, instead, to make like the Credible Hulk. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd rather hate to think that Wikipedia has put facts up to democratic voting. What happens when several people on Newton's talk page state that F doesn't equal ma? Here are links from an airforce and the 2 main manufacturing bodies (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) that state the speed at 2,495kph, 1521mph and Mach 2+ respectively.
2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer)
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Mach 2.0+ - EADS
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html
Mach 2+ - Technical Guide
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf
These are all top ranking sources, especially the 2 from the actual people who made the plane. I think I'm correct in thinking that these should put the matter beyond 'consensus' (also know as 'who can shout the loudest' in scientific circles). So far there is one source on the entire internet that states the speed as Mach 1.8 but you expect people to ignore every other source and heed that one? Please don't be so naive as to think that there aren't biases among the other editors and that that isn't what's really causing this issue. Can we please have some kind of sensible decision in light of the above? Can I at least add these sources to the page?Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about "voting", it's about establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and comparing it to what would be an obvious fringe theory doesn't help your case. The argument is not in favor of the "Mach 1.8" figure, but rather whether the "Mach 2.35" figure is correct. Please remember to comment on content, not the potential motivations of other contributors; now, it's clear the Mach 1.8 figure isn't supported by sources, so I've modified that, but further changes need to be done as part of the discussion on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Donald E. Adams

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I added an infobox to this article Donald E. Adams, but have a question is it notable? I mean, according to Military Times he only got a Silver Star as a main valor.--Mishae (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As a flying ace, notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Question 2: Is Purple Heart notable? Such examples are Victor Zaragoza and Juan Ramirez--Mishae (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Heart doesn't confer notability - those two fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I guess I should speedily delete them. I already put a tag on them.--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they need to be WP:PRODded. A7 is only for where there is no claim to notability, which these have. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had made them? In that case, G7 (author request) could apply, if you wanted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you will delete them either way, since it doesn't meet the notability, or are they now? Confused.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both now proposed for deletion; if somebody objects believing evidence can be provided that they are notable, then a full WP:AFD can be done; if not, the PROD expires in one week, at which point deletion occurs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See my response on my talk page. I have made this argument successfully several times. The Austrian Airforce link very specifically states 2495kph at 10,975m. That is a very specific reference from a reliable source, rather than Mach 2+. On the Eurofighter talk page I have provided several other supporting references. I have argued my piece and can't see why it's me being asked to provide further proof. Most places that say 'Mach 2' say Mach 2+ so don't specifically disagree and the Mach 1.8 link is an isolated link specifying an operational limit imposed during peace-time. If any one of you actually knew anything about planes, you wouldn't be suggesting that a plane with ramped intakes is slower than similar planes with pitot intakes and less powerful engines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people editing who don't actually understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being "asked to provide further proof" because the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors is that you have not made your argument successfully at all. For better or for worse understanding of the subject is not required to edit any topic on Wikipedia; even if you're occasionally forced to deal with Randy from Boise, the way to resolve that isn't to get mad when people don't accept your word, but, instead, to make like the Credible Hulk. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd rather hate to think that Wikipedia has put facts up to democratic voting. What happens when several people on Newton's talk page state that F doesn't equal ma? Here are links from an airforce and the 2 main manufacturing bodies (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) that state the speed at 2,495kph, 1521mph and Mach 2+ respectively.
2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer)
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Mach 2.0+ - EADS
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html
Mach 2+ - Technical Guide
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf
These are all top ranking sources, especially the 2 from the actual people who made the plane. I think I'm correct in thinking that these should put the matter beyond 'consensus' (also know as 'who can shout the loudest' in scientific circles). So far there is one source on the entire internet that states the speed as Mach 1.8 but you expect people to ignore every other source and heed that one? Please don't be so naive as to think that there aren't biases among the other editors and that that isn't what's really causing this issue. Can we please have some kind of sensible decision in light of the above? Can I at least add these sources to the page?Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about "voting", it's about establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and comparing it to what would be an obvious fringe theory doesn't help your case. The argument is not in favor of the "Mach 1.8" figure, but rather whether the "Mach 2.35" figure is correct. Please remember to comment on content, not the potential motivations of other contributors; now, it's clear the Mach 1.8 figure isn't supported by sources, so I've modified that, but further changes need to be done as part of the discussion on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Donald E. Adams

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I added an infobox to this article Donald E. Adams, but have a question is it notable? I mean, according to Military Times he only got a Silver Star as a main valor.--Mishae (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As a flying ace, notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Question 2: Is Purple Heart notable? Such examples are Victor Zaragoza and Juan Ramirez--Mishae (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Heart doesn't confer notability - those two fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I guess I should speedily delete them. I already put a tag on them.--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they need to be WP:PRODded. A7 is only for where there is no claim to notability, which these have. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had made them? In that case, G7 (author request) could apply, if you wanted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you will delete them either way, since it doesn't meet the notability, or are they now? Confused.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both now proposed for deletion; if somebody objects believing evidence can be provided that they are notable, then a full WP:AFD can be done; if not, the PROD expires in one week, at which point deletion occurs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't a clue...

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

...what this is about! But I just had to share it with someone. Ecuador must be a low-traffic page, as this remained on the talk page for a month. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

...good grief! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
...Great Caesar's Ghost! If there is an award for the talk page post of the month, it should have won for July....William 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  Facepalm Found the winner for August! - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That has emails and apparent financial info that should probably be deleted from the page history. But can we keep the rest of it? :) - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP is continuing to post the same tripe on vario u s p ages, per their contributions. The IP has been blocked, but the banking info is still visible. The internet - playground for people with far too much time on their hands! Heck, that's why I'm on WP, though I do try to be productive, most of the time. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See my response on my talk page. I have made this argument successfully several times. The Austrian Airforce link very specifically states 2495kph at 10,975m. That is a very specific reference from a reliable source, rather than Mach 2+. On the Eurofighter talk page I have provided several other supporting references. I have argued my piece and can't see why it's me being asked to provide further proof. Most places that say 'Mach 2' say Mach 2+ so don't specifically disagree and the Mach 1.8 link is an isolated link specifying an operational limit imposed during peace-time. If any one of you actually knew anything about planes, you wouldn't be suggesting that a plane with ramped intakes is slower than similar planes with pitot intakes and less powerful engines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people editing who don't actually understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being "asked to provide further proof" because the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors is that you have not made your argument successfully at all. For better or for worse understanding of the subject is not required to edit any topic on Wikipedia; even if you're occasionally forced to deal with Randy from Boise, the way to resolve that isn't to get mad when people don't accept your word, but, instead, to make like the Credible Hulk. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd rather hate to think that Wikipedia has put facts up to democratic voting. What happens when several people on Newton's talk page state that F doesn't equal ma? Here are links from an airforce and the 2 main manufacturing bodies (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) that state the speed at 2,495kph, 1521mph and Mach 2+ respectively.
2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer)
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Mach 2.0+ - EADS
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html
Mach 2+ - Technical Guide
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf
These are all top ranking sources, especially the 2 from the actual people who made the plane. I think I'm correct in thinking that these should put the matter beyond 'consensus' (also know as 'who can shout the loudest' in scientific circles). So far there is one source on the entire internet that states the speed as Mach 1.8 but you expect people to ignore every other source and heed that one? Please don't be so naive as to think that there aren't biases among the other editors and that that isn't what's really causing this issue. Can we please have some kind of sensible decision in light of the above? Can I at least add these sources to the page?Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about "voting", it's about establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and comparing it to what would be an obvious fringe theory doesn't help your case. The argument is not in favor of the "Mach 1.8" figure, but rather whether the "Mach 2.35" figure is correct. Please remember to comment on content, not the potential motivations of other contributors; now, it's clear the Mach 1.8 figure isn't supported by sources, so I've modified that, but further changes need to be done as part of the discussion on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Donald E. Adams

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I added an infobox to this article Donald E. Adams, but have a question is it notable? I mean, according to Military Times he only got a Silver Star as a main valor.--Mishae (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As a flying ace, notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Question 2: Is Purple Heart notable? Such examples are Victor Zaragoza and Juan Ramirez--Mishae (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Heart doesn't confer notability - those two fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I guess I should speedily delete them. I already put a tag on them.--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they need to be WP:PRODded. A7 is only for where there is no claim to notability, which these have. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had made them? In that case, G7 (author request) could apply, if you wanted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you will delete them either way, since it doesn't meet the notability, or are they now? Confused.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both now proposed for deletion; if somebody objects believing evidence can be provided that they are notable, then a full WP:AFD can be done; if not, the PROD expires in one week, at which point deletion occurs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't a clue...

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

...what this is about! But I just had to share it with someone. Ecuador must be a low-traffic page, as this remained on the talk page for a month. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

...good grief! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
...Great Caesar's Ghost! If there is an award for the talk page post of the month, it should have won for July....William 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  Facepalm Found the winner for August! - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That has emails and apparent financial info that should probably be deleted from the page history. But can we keep the rest of it? :) - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP is continuing to post the same tripe on vario u s p ages, per their contributions. The IP has been blocked, but the banking info is still visible. The internet - playground for people with far too much time on their hands! Heck, that's why I'm on WP, though I do try to be productive, most of the time. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (August 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See my response on my talk page. I have made this argument successfully several times. The Austrian Airforce link very specifically states 2495kph at 10,975m. That is a very specific reference from a reliable source, rather than Mach 2+. On the Eurofighter talk page I have provided several other supporting references. I have argued my piece and can't see why it's me being asked to provide further proof. Most places that say 'Mach 2' say Mach 2+ so don't specifically disagree and the Mach 1.8 link is an isolated link specifying an operational limit imposed during peace-time. If any one of you actually knew anything about planes, you wouldn't be suggesting that a plane with ramped intakes is slower than similar planes with pitot intakes and less powerful engines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people editing who don't actually understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being "asked to provide further proof" because the WP:CONSENSUS of other editors is that you have not made your argument successfully at all. For better or for worse understanding of the subject is not required to edit any topic on Wikipedia; even if you're occasionally forced to deal with Randy from Boise, the way to resolve that isn't to get mad when people don't accept your word, but, instead, to make like the Credible Hulk. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd rather hate to think that Wikipedia has put facts up to democratic voting. What happens when several people on Newton's talk page state that F doesn't equal ma? Here are links from an airforce and the 2 main manufacturing bodies (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) that state the speed at 2,495kph, 1521mph and Mach 2+ respectively.
2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer)
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon
Mach 2.0+ - EADS
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html
Mach 2+ - Technical Guide
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf
These are all top ranking sources, especially the 2 from the actual people who made the plane. I think I'm correct in thinking that these should put the matter beyond 'consensus' (also know as 'who can shout the loudest' in scientific circles). So far there is one source on the entire internet that states the speed as Mach 1.8 but you expect people to ignore every other source and heed that one? Please don't be so naive as to think that there aren't biases among the other editors and that that isn't what's really causing this issue. Can we please have some kind of sensible decision in light of the above? Can I at least add these sources to the page?Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about "voting", it's about establishing WP:CONSENSUS, and comparing it to what would be an obvious fringe theory doesn't help your case. The argument is not in favor of the "Mach 1.8" figure, but rather whether the "Mach 2.35" figure is correct. Please remember to comment on content, not the potential motivations of other contributors; now, it's clear the Mach 1.8 figure isn't supported by sources, so I've modified that, but further changes need to be done as part of the discussion on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Donald E. Adams

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I added an infobox to this article Donald E. Adams, but have a question is it notable? I mean, according to Military Times he only got a Silver Star as a main valor.--Mishae (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As a flying ace, notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Question 2: Is Purple Heart notable? Such examples are Victor Zaragoza and Juan Ramirez--Mishae (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Heart doesn't confer notability - those two fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I guess I should speedily delete them. I already put a tag on them.--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they need to be WP:PRODded. A7 is only for where there is no claim to notability, which these have. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise you had made them? In that case, G7 (author request) could apply, if you wanted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you will delete them either way, since it doesn't meet the notability, or are they now? Confused.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both now proposed for deletion; if somebody objects believing evidence can be provided that they are notable, then a full WP:AFD can be done; if not, the PROD expires in one week, at which point deletion occurs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Actually, links to the publication in references seem to have been added almost entirely by the blocked IP, although some before he was blocked. But, if you want it there, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised it was block-evasion. Thanks for pointing that out. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger/Archive21&oldid=1151016819"